New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jury trial election

Legal area

Court

18 Sept 2023

C(CA40/2023) v R [2023] NZCA 453

Citation

[2023] NZCA 453
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the s296 leave application because the guilty pleas were entered to the relevant category 3 charges without any not guilty plea or jury election for those charges; s50 and s139 show the right to elect jury trial is charge‑specific and s297(1)(b)(i) requires such appeals to be brought first in the High Court, so Vohra governs and O (CA419/2015) is not followed to the contrary.
1 Apr 2022

CLARKE v FOURTH ESTATE HOLDINGS (2012) LTD [2022] NZHC 649

Citation

[2022] NZHC 649
Court

High Court

The Court ordered a separate preliminary hearing under r 10.15 to determine whether the challenged sentence is capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meanings because there were no difficult demarcation issues, the determination could be made objectively from the article, a ruling in defendants' favour would dispose of the proceeding and save resources, and the likely duplication and delay were outweighed by those considerations; a half-day hearing was directed for 23 June 2022 with procedural timetabling orders.
22 Apr 2021

G v R [2021] NZHC 695

Citation

[2021] NZHC 695
Court

High Court

Appellant's election to proceed by Judge alone was an informed choice and counsel's written and oral advice was adequate; trial counsel did not abandon the appellant's core instruction (that the complainant was not truthful) but made tactical choices in cross-examination and closing which are within counsel's discretion; alleged failures did not produce a miscarriage of justice and the appeal is dismissed.
12 Jun 2020

CATO v MANAIA MEDIA LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1240

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1240
Court

High Court

The court held the defendants' December 2019 jury notice was acceptably late because the original jury-notice deadline had become effectively redundant after the parties' timetable and trial fixture were vacated and pleadings were reopened by the Court of Appeal decision; the delay was technical and excusable, there was no real prejudice to the plaintiff attributable to the late election, and the court therefore exercised its broad discretion under r 1.19 to extend time and accepted the late jury notice under s 16 Senior Courts Act 2016.
20 Dec 2019

SHEPHERD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 3460

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3460
Court

High Court

Charge 1 (obtaining by deception) was quashed because there was insufficient evidence that the bank relied on the alleged false representation when issuing the employer credit card; convictions on Charges 2–7 for theft by a person in a special relationship were upheld as supported by evidence; sentence was reduced from three years to two years six months' imprisonment because enhanced reparation paid at appeal and the defendant's rehabilitative prospects justified a greater cumulative discount; the reparation order of $111,577.67 was not set aside.
16 Aug 2019

WIRIHANA v R [2019] NZCA 368

Citation

[2019] 3 NZLR 549
Court

Court of Appeal

Sections 230(2) and 247(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, as amended by the Courts Matters Act 2018, operate only where a jury trial election has been formally withdrawn under s53; a guilty plea entered without formal withdrawal does not amount to a withdrawal for the purposes of those provisions, and therefore appeals in the present cases lie to the Court of Appeal.
1 May 2018

VOHRA v R [2018] NZCA 128

Citation

[2018] NZCA 128
Court

Court of Appeal

The correct first appeal court is determined by applying ss 230 and 247 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to the specific charge and plea: where a charge was the subject of a guilty plea and no jury election could be entered, appeals lie to the High Court (Vohra); where a defendant elected jury trial, pleaded guilty prior to trial and the sentence appealed exceeds five years, the statutory criteria in s 247(c) mean the Court of Appeal is the first appeal court (McKelvy). Jackson v R was not directly engaged and its statutory interpretation was not shown to be erroneous.
13 Oct 2016

RANGITONGA v PARKER [2016] NZHC 2434

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2434
Court

High Court

The High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the appellant had elected trial by jury under Criminal Procedure Act 2011 s 297; accordingly the appeal was struck out.
10 May 2012

KARAM V FAIRFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-005021

Citation

openlaw-2745010f_4469_4dc3_b5dc_ac23bf05d824.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for separate question determination was dismissed because Fairfax did not discharge the onus to show good preponderant reasons for splitting the trial: publication questions are not purely legal given underlying factual issues and the plaintiff's valid jury election, there is significant legal uncertainty on hyperlinks and publication, and the risk of duplication, appeals and injustice outweighed the potential benefits of a preliminary determination that might only expedite the case if Fairfax achieved complete success.